It proably does effect the upgradability of the aircraft, something that the services will look to do for decades to come. Remember the Viper started out as a light a2a fighter, and became a bomb truck.

Its easy to move down the ladder. A great A2A platform (like the F15, F16 and to some extent the FA18) can easily be used for the attack role, but to have an A10 move up the ladder is a lot harder.

Agree to be fully sincere. Just meaning there is no silver bullet in flight controls (A rafale for ex crashed after his engines were blown by a F18)

The F35 promoters tend to disagree about the silver bullet part…

Hmmm…
no intent to troll (i do like gripen), but flight control did fail didnt it?

Yes. On flight #6 there was PIO and in 1993 (first delivered ac) it threw itself in a superstall at low altitude and crashed. (3 years before entering service)

Other than that it has performed pretty well. I think one pilot, in a later stage, managed to get into superstall and at the same time use ab. That caused an uncontrolled loop/spin and he ejected before the ac could get itself back into control. (He panicked and didnt let the flight controls take it back to normal)

I would say it performs well.

I remember reading somewhere that the gripen flight control software allows the pilot momentary leeway upto 35 degree AoA before the control kicks in and brings it down below 26. Can anyone give any more information on this ?

I think you are talking about Region II in the envelope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKvNe2VWt4&t=960

The Region I + II part of the envelope are around 100 degrees. So its a pretty tolerant flight control when it comes to allowed alpha.

Dont be pessimistic Tu22
F35 only need fixes on airframe (cracks) engine (cracks + cold weather probs), radar (doesnt work properly, see report above), arrest hook, RAM coating (peels), HMSD (blurs), … List is too long for a single post.
Then to integrate software (hardest part probably)
Everything is going fine.
In the meanwhile, it is already the most deadly fighter ever built : it killed at least half of European fighter projects (who dares if they are allied)

You are right. Even before the introduction it most likely will be the jet that has killed more competing aircraft projects ever.

It would be a HUGE problem had the f-35 reached IOC…The whole point of going from the development stage, to the Testing phase before going to IOC is that chinks and faults can be overcome. No one expects that any program entering testing is going to go smooth, The F-22 had even bigger software problems, and problems with electronics on the test beds, yet they were sorted out and now it is in service.

As I said. As long as the system critical parts work (flight controls, mll, G-tolerance, physical problems etc) then its fine to release it. But the F35 is nowhere near that. The engine testing isnt mature (so it should not be in a large production line!), the ac itself has physical problems AND is not even tested within the operational envelope. (At least the LRIP 1,2,3 etc)

Just because the F22 was a worse program in terms of management (by the same company) doesnt mean that the F35 is good. Concurrency is a monster in the current form. There are too many unknowns when it comes to basic performance.

If this were a typical fighter development & procurement I would almost agree with you. However, unlike recent programs like Eurofighter & Rafale, the F-35 program already includes a plan (and more importantly some money) to upgrade early LRIP F-35s to a later Block standard.

There are two types of upgrades involved, Software and Hardware.

Yes, both software and hardware. As long as it not system critical updates it is fine by me, but if you ship a jet that has physical problems (like bulkhead cracks, peeling of ram-coating, problems with the engine etc) then upgrading it later on is not good enough. Look at the SAAB approach.
Step 1, deliver a working product @ the time of introduction with good enough performance.
Step 2, add additional capabilities through minor upgrades continually and offer a new version when the time is right.

Thats how contingency should be handled, not by saying “buy this piece of garbage and in 5 years it might almost work as well we promised in the beginning”.

But the project has so many “wtf moments” already. It is the most avionics dense jet ever made and it will use little or no COTS. That is just like begging for problems.

Russians don’t seem to think rear visibility matters so much, and T-50 is actually intended to WVR.

Is that why Flankers like the Su35S have a rear facing radar?

Both Are intended to WVR (T50, F-35).. The F-35 has to fill the shoes of F-16, which had awesome visibility.

No, the F35 is not intended for WVR and Pak FA with the much larger bays (that can fit missiles with much longer range) is intended for both BVR and WVR. F35 is built for dropping bombs (attack/SEAD penetration) and have some limited BVR-capability. In order to survive BVR you need to be able to maneuver, ad with the short ranges we are talking about using missiles against threats in the rear is suicidal for the F35 pilots (compare acceleration charts and the ranges expected and it will get clear)

The EOTS (the IR sensor that actually has ranging) is only forward looking, the 360 sphere has too low resolution to determine range at anything further away than 3 km (as in a minimum of 2 pixels across from the edges of the wings of the target).

gripen was tailored for swedish needs, low cost scattered fighters in good numbers over a large flat territory where you can see your enemy from far away…

I think most geologists would disagree that Sweden is flat.

The only flat surface is the baltic sea, we have smaller ski resorts in the capitol and to the east and north of it. (still within the area code of the capitol)

But it is a defensive system from the beginning, that is true. By having shorter distance to the airfields, quicker turnarounds (high sortie rate) and little need for service (that happens to be fast) a small airforce can mach a larger one over time.

Why would anyone buy LRIP 1-7?

In summary LM knowingly build jets that almost can’t fly (limited to <5G sustained turn rate, no or limited ab use and supersonic flight, no weather tolerance etc).

It’s almost 400 useless machines that can only be used for schooling at best (apparantly not very well according to the report).

I understand that LM wants to show production, get a cashflow, increase the buyers investment etc but why would anyone be stupid enough to buy this? The whole purpose in working with large number is that SDD can be minimized in relative terms.

Why buy a jet that can’t go supersonic, barely can turn, has almost no integrated avionics, nor datalinks, can only use ab briefly, is a potential death trap (poor visibility, uncertain pilot ejection capability, no weather tolerance etc) and can’t stand outdoors in winter. And more specifically… why pay over 170m$ per unit?

I have to check my books for other similarly wasteful programs with other vendors. The only thing the (L)RIP aircrafts are good for is to solidify financial commitment from clients, but what they get (the clients) is a useless pos that is too expensive to use as a trainer anyway.

Yes, this is the projected numbers. As with all projections from LM they tend to get better the closer to the final date they are.

I doubt it. The Swiss eval report specifically mentions that there was no fusion between the radar and EW suite (Gripen D was it?).

Sorry, I meant that radar data from several jets could be fused in one display as early as on the Viggen (offering “passive” BVR engagements).

The PS05 (current Gripen C) has HADF capability with triangulation thx to the datalink. But how integrated that is in the whole EWS is something I dont know.